If you're gay, get ready, the GOP and Trump's cabinet are coming after you. Believe it!

[sealybobo]

Start off with Betsy DeVos:

Donald Trump’s education secretary could be justifiably quashed by the U.S. Senate. Her long public record indicates she is a religious Christian zealot who does not believe in the actual separation of church and state, wants public monies funneled into religious schools, and has contributed through family foundations to bigoted groups with a militant anti-gay agenda. During her confirmation hearing she gave disturbing answers to questions about her views of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, standardized tests, and school vouchers. She also suggested guns have a place in American schools, though her claim that they were necessary to defend students from grizzly bear attacks was not very compelling.

Watching her testimony was both hilarious and frightening. That the right wing could agree with her on guns in schools was just bizarre. She believes in conversion therapy and home school.

The bitch firmly believes in "Conversion Therapy". For anyone who doesn't know what that is, the concept was central to the film "A Clockwork Orange".

Trump Education Nominee Betsy DeVos Lied to the Senate



And of course, we know what Pence position is. In his state, he diverted money to help AIDS patients to invest in conversion therapy..

And they do all this evil going against our very constitution in the name of Christianity. Jesus would have a fit.

These are some nasty, dirty Christian Taliban. America had to take Trump's threat seriously. Right wingers are some dangerous people. Lucky his favorability rating is in the 30's. America may finally be getting it.

Do you really think the new government wants to do something against homosexuals? I don't think so honestly
Words and facts are different

You'll see. I'll remember you naively said that

 

[Divine Wind]

Do you really think the new government wants to do something against homosexuals? I don't think so honestly
Words and facts are different

You'll see. I'll remember you naively said that

And I'll remember your fear-mongering that Trump is going to round up all the gays, put pink triangles on them and ship their asses to Manzanar.

.....which, if he did, would look absolutely fabulous by summertime!

 

[JakeStarkey]

The final times the people overwhelmingly supported it, the federal courts even more so, and the popularity issue is over.

The antis have lost.

Well see that's the thing about the voters' mandate on the USSC this last year's election. There's gonna be a new Court in town. And the issues of why children's interests in marriage were ignored at Obergefell are going to come up. It's not every day you see the judicial write a new law that says marriage can legally bifurcate children from either a mother or father for life...

Hundreds of amicus briefs were filled on behalf of children in support and in opposition to gay marriage. The idea that the decision was decided without their interests being addressed is just another lie you use to console yourself.

They had no unique representation at the Hearing. So you admit their considerations were paramount either way, but children had no separate unique advocate at Obergefell. That's problematic. The judge(s) cannot both be guardian ad litem AND judge at the same time. You can't have judges be impartial jurors if they are also acting as attorneys for one of the parties at the same time. Nobody disputes the unique part and share children have in the word "marriage". Therefore at that contract revision hearing, they HAD TO HAVE HAD representation of their own. They didn't.

Given the gravity of the change in the word "marriage" after Obergefell where children are involved (legally divorcing them via contract for life from either a mother or father); there's going to be a rehearing of the case on that point alone. Although there are perhaps a dozen other viable legal & procedural points that can overturn Obergefell.

The babble about children having "no separate advocate" is nonsense.

The issue was about marriage, not children. If you want to make about it children, you will not be pleased to have informed evidence that heterosexual parents engaged in child abuse at about the same level as gay or lesbian parents. But you won't have to worry about it, because SCOTUS will not entertain such a hearing.

 

[kaz]

Do you really think the new government wants to do something against homosexuals? I don't think so honestly
Words and facts are different

You'll see. I'll remember you naively said that

And I'll remember your fear-mongering that Trump is going to round up all the gays, put pink triangles on them and ship their asses to Manzanar.

.....which, if he did, would look absolutely fabulous by summertime!

Think of the tapestries!

 

[Silhouette]

The final times the people overwhelmingly supported it, the federal courts even more so, and the popularity issue is over.

The antis have lost.

Well see that's the thing about the voters' mandate on the USSC this last year's election. There's gonna be a new Court in town. And the issues of why children's interests in marriage were ignored at Obergefell are going to come up. It's not every day you see the judicial write a new law that says marriage can legally bifurcate children from either a mother or father for life...

Hundreds of amicus briefs were filled on behalf of children in support and in opposition to gay marriage. The idea that the decision was decided without their interests being addressed is just another lie you use to console yourself.

They had no unique representation at the Hearing. So you admit their considerations were paramount either way, but children had no separate unique advocate at Obergefell. That's problematic. The judge(s) cannot both be guardian ad litem AND judge at the same time. You can't have judges be impartial jurors if they are also acting as attorneys for one of the parties at the same time. Nobody disputes the unique part and share children have in the word "marriage". Therefore at that contract revision hearing, they HAD TO HAVE HAD representation of their own. They didn't.

Given the gravity of the change in the word "marriage" after Obergefell where children are involved (legally divorcing them via contract for life from either a mother or father); there's going to be a rehearing of the case on that point alone. Although there are perhaps a dozen other viable legal & procedural points that can overturn Obergefell.

The babble about children having "no separate advocate" is nonsense.

The issue was about marriage, not children. If you want to make about it children, you will not be pleased to have informed evidence that heterosexual parents engaged in child abuse at about the same level as gay or lesbian parents. But you won't have to worry about it, because SCOTUS will not entertain such a hearing.

Well now that's funny. Because I clearly remember gays nudging Kennedy over the fence using the issue of "gays need to be married because of the children!!". Suddenly when we consider ALL children and ALL their interests in marriage (mother and father both) suddenly "the issue was about marriage, not children.

In every culture in the world, the word "marriage" is synonymous with "for children". And, children need both a mother and father in their lives to be their best. The court ripped that away without their having so much as one lawyer present for their separate interests collectively.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That was about marriage, sil, not about children.

Your ongoing crusade continues to fail.

 

[mdk]

Well now that's funny. Because I clearly remember gays nudging Kennedy over the fence using the issue of "gays need to be married because of the children!!". Suddenly when we consider ALL children and ALL their interests in marriage (mother and father both) suddenly "the issue was about marriage, not children.

I see we've reached the inevitable part of the conversation where you start citing your imagination as fact.

In every culture in the world, the word "marriage" is synonymous with "for children". And, children need both a mother and father in their lives to be their best. The court ripped that away without their having so much as one lawyer present for their separate interests collectively.

If you spent half as much time worrying about gay marriage as you do to your own situation then perhaps you could have a father in your household.

 

[rdean]

Start off with Betsy DeVos:

Donald Trump’s education secretary could be justifiably quashed by the U.S. Senate. Her long public record indicates she is a religious Christian zealot who does not believe in the actual separation of church and state, wants public monies funneled into religious schools, and has contributed through family foundations to bigoted groups with a militant anti-gay agenda. During her confirmation hearing she gave disturbing answers to questions about her views of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, standardized tests, and school vouchers. She also suggested guns have a place in American schools, though her claim that they were necessary to defend students from grizzly bear attacks was not very compelling.

Watching her testimony was both hilarious and frightening. That the right wing could agree with her on guns in schools was just bizarre. She believes in conversion therapy and home school.

The bitch firmly believes in "Conversion Therapy". For anyone who doesn't know what that is, the concept was central to the film "A Clockwork Orange".

Trump Education Nominee Betsy DeVos Lied to the Senate



And of course, we know what Pence position is. In his state, he diverted money to help AIDS patients to invest in conversion therapy..

And they do all this evil going against our very constitution in the name of Christianity. Jesus would have a fit.

These are some nasty, dirty Christian Taliban. America had to take Trump's threat seriously. Right wingers are some dangerous people. Lucky his favorability rating is in the 30's. America may finally be getting it.

You lefties are afraid of Christians who are anti-homosexual, yet you defend and promote Islam.

Smells like bullshit.

I'm nervous about dangerous Right Wingers who call themselves Christian but don't act like traditional Christians.

I never liked Islam. I don't know anyone who does.

 

[rdean]

So now Trump is coming after gays? You libs have lost it, seek help for your TOCD.

It's ridiculous. Trump is literally the most pro gay rights president ever elected. Even Obama ran against gay marriage to get himself elected.

Absolutely assinine

Pence is the most hate gays vice president that I've ever been aware of.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

dont worry mdk....you can hide out at my place......i would love a good cook

Word is...

There's a waiting list for his.... um... services.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

No. It's the excuse they will use to revisit the case

They don't have the standing to revisit the case.

Of course not. Not to mention nobody's proposing any such nonsense.

Besides Silhouette, there are quite a few religious/political organizations that are pushing for the case to be revisited. The National Organization for Marriage and Focus on the Family are two that come to mind.

Well, if so, what a colossal waste of time and energy. There are much yuger fish to fry in this country. Geeze Louise.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Rdean trying to fearmonger with lies and hate. Typical bigotry from him.

Drama Queen is more like it

 

[mdk]

Well, if so, what a colossal waste of time and energy. There are much yuger fish to fry in this country. Geeze Louise.

For me, it will always be our crushing and unsustainable debt.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Well, if so, what a colossal waste of time and energy. There are much yuger fish to fry in this country. Geeze Louise.

For me, it will always be our crushing and unsustainable debt.

Yeah, agreed. Probably a bigger mess than Mr. & Mr. Feinstein. Meh, but what do I know.

 

[WillReadmore]

The final times the people overwhelmingly supported it, the federal courts even more so, and the popularity issue is over.

The antis have lost.

Well see that's the thing about the voters' mandate on the USSC this last year's election. There's gonna be a new Court in town. And the issues of why children's interests in marriage were ignored at Obergefell are going to come up. It's not every day you see the judicial write a new law that says marriage can legally bifurcate children from either a mother or father for life...

Hundreds of amicus briefs were filled on behalf of children in support and in opposition to gay marriage. The idea that the decision was decided without their interests being addressed is just another lie you use to console yourself.

They had no unique representation at the Hearing. So you admit their considerations were paramount either way, but children had no separate unique advocate at Obergefell. That's problematic. The judge(s) cannot both be guardian ad litem AND judge at the same time. You can't have judges be impartial jurors if they are also acting as attorneys for one of the parties at the same time. Nobody disputes the unique part and share children have in the word "marriage". Therefore at that contract revision hearing, they HAD TO HAVE HAD representation of their own. They didn't.

Given the gravity of the change in the word "marriage" after Obergefell where children are involved (legally divorcing them via contract for life from either a mother or father); there's going to be a rehearing of the case on that point alone. Although there are perhaps a dozen other viable legal & procedural points that can overturn Obergefell.

The babble about children having "no separate advocate" is nonsense.

The issue was about marriage, not children. If you want to make about it children, you will not be pleased to have informed evidence that heterosexual parents engaged in child abuse at about the same level as gay or lesbian parents. But you won't have to worry about it, because SCOTUS will not entertain such a hearing.

Well now that's funny. Because I clearly remember gays nudging Kennedy over the fence using the issue of "gays need to be married because of the children!!". Suddenly when we consider ALL children and ALL their interests in marriage (mother and father both) suddenly "the issue was about marriage, not children.

In every culture in the world, the word "marriage" is synonymous with "for children". And, children need both a mother and father in their lives to be their best. The court ripped that away without their having so much as one lawyer present for their separate interests collectively.

We've long had same sex couples adopting. It's ridiculous to suggest that has to be re-addressed due to these parents wanting to be married.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The final times the people overwhelmingly supported it, the federal courts even more so, and the popularity issue is over.

The antis have lost.

Well see that's the thing about the voters' mandate on the USSC this last year's election. There's gonna be a new Court in town. And the issues of why children's interests in marriage were ignored at Obergefell are going to come up. It's not every day you see the judicial write a new law that says marriage can legally bifurcate children from either a mother or father for life...

Hundreds of amicus briefs were filled on behalf of children in support and in opposition to gay marriage. The idea that the decision was decided without their interests being addressed is just another lie you use to console yourself.

They had no unique representation at the Hearing. So you admit their considerations were paramount either way, but children had no separate unique advocate at Obergefell. That's problematic. The judge(s) cannot both be guardian ad litem AND judge at the same time. You can't have judges be impartial jurors if they are also acting as attorneys for one of the parties at the same time. Nobody disputes the unique part and share children have in the word "marriage". Therefore at that contract revision hearing, they HAD TO HAVE HAD representation of their own. They didn't.

Given the gravity of the change in the word "marriage" after Obergefell where children are involved (legally divorcing them via contract for life from either a mother or father); there's going to be a rehearing of the case on that point alone. Although there are perhaps a dozen other viable legal & procedural points that can overturn Obergefell.

The babble about children having "no separate advocate" is nonsense.

The issue was about marriage, not children. If you want to make about it children, you will not be pleased to have informed evidence that heterosexual parents engaged in child abuse at about the same level as gay or lesbian parents. But you won't have to worry about it, because SCOTUS will not entertain such a hearing.

Well now that's funny. Because I clearly remember gays nudging Kennedy over the fence using the issue of "gays need to be married because of the children!!". Suddenly when we consider ALL children and ALL their interests in marriage (mother and father both) suddenly "the issue was about marriage, not children.

In every culture in the world, the word "marriage" is synonymous with "for children". And, children need both a mother and father in their lives to be their best. The court ripped that away without their having so much as one lawyer present for their separate interests collectively.

We've long had same sex couples adopting. It's ridiculous to suggest that has to be re-addressed due to these parents wanting to be married.

Sil is not sensible about this issue.

 

[Divine Wind]

I'm nervous about dangerous Right Wingers who call themselves Christian but don't act like traditional Christians.

I never liked Islam. I don't know anyone who does.

You seem nervous about a lot of shit. Have you ever considered seeing a doctor about your anxiety issues?

Pence is the most hate gays vice president that I've ever been aware of.

Nonetheless, he can't violate the Constitution. At least not for long.

 

[tycho1572]

Start off with Betsy DeVos:

Donald Trump’s education secretary could be justifiably quashed by the U.S. Senate. Her long public record indicates she is a religious Christian zealot who does not believe in the actual separation of church and state, wants public monies funneled into religious schools, and has contributed through family foundations to bigoted groups with a militant anti-gay agenda. During her confirmation hearing she gave disturbing answers to questions about her views of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, standardized tests, and school vouchers. She also suggested guns have a place in American schools, though her claim that they were necessary to defend students from grizzly bear attacks was not very compelling.

Watching her testimony was both hilarious and frightening. That the right wing could agree with her on guns in schools was just bizarre. She believes in conversion therapy and home school.

The bitch firmly believes in "Conversion Therapy". For anyone who doesn't know what that is, the concept was central to the film "A Clockwork Orange".

Trump Education Nominee Betsy DeVos Lied to the Senate



And of course, we know what Pence position is. In his state, he diverted money to help AIDS patients to invest in conversion therapy..

And they do all this evil going against our very constitution in the name of Christianity. Jesus would have a fit.

These are some nasty, dirty Christian Taliban. America had to take Trump's threat seriously. Right wingers are some dangerous people. Lucky his favorability rating is in the 30's. America may finally be getting it.

You and your friends have nothing to worry about, rdean. Sheesh! lol

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'm nervous about dangerous Right Wingers who call themselves Christian but don't act like traditional Christians.

I never liked Islam. I don't know anyone who does.

You seem nervous about a lot of shit. Have you ever considered seeing a doctor about your anxiety issues?

Pence is the most hate gays vice president that I've ever been aware of.

Nonetheless, he can't violate the Constitution. At least not for long.

Sure, he can.

 

[Divine Wind]

I'm nervous about dangerous Right Wingers who call themselves Christian but don't act like traditional Christians.

I never liked Islam. I don't know anyone who does.

You seem nervous about a lot of shit. Have you ever considered seeing a doctor about your anxiety issues?

Pence is the most hate gays vice president that I've ever been aware of.

Nonetheless, he can't violate the Constitution. At least not for long.

Sure, he can.

Note the "not for long". The Founders were wise. Believe in the system or pick up a gun and change it. Good Luck!